> Funny how the Samsung apologists have gone from saying "of course it's not a copy, they had these designs before Apple" to "what else could they do?". This defence of plagiarism as being somehow in the better interest of consumers is laughable. "intellectual property is first and foremost intended to protect users"? What have you been smoking?
Intellectual property has always been a temporary monopoly granted to provide economic incentives to inventors/writers/what-have-you for societal advancement.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objective...:
"The stated objective of most intellectual property law (with the exception of trademarks) is to "Promote progress."[12] By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work."
That said, I don't like your tone. Arguing, for or against a position does not make one an apologist.
Intellectual property has always been a temporary monopoly granted to provide economic incentives to inventors/writers/what-have-you for societal advancement.
Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#Objective...: "The stated objective of most intellectual property law (with the exception of trademarks) is to "Promote progress."[12] By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work."
That said, I don't like your tone. Arguing, for or against a position does not make one an apologist.